My apologies Karl. I hesitated to even comment. My intent wasn't to demean the quality, but simply to state what you have stated below. I personally know that mobiles, swordweb, and BibleCS don't support maps (generally images) very well. We've discussed a better format than image modules for maps and some century might get around to implementing something, but Xiphos just goes out and releases something. That's not a bad thing. I think you claim that characterization with your head high. It's just not something we can put on CrossWire and officially support yet. Same goes with ThML vs. OSIS. Our policy is to work toward OSIS/TEI modules, but this takes ages. I'm happy for you to release before us in some other format, as it hasn't been a disruptions as all on our support list (likely due to the testing you mention). The final thing I didn't mention were modules like Gill. We've had trouble with tracking down a Gill module with a clean pedigree (well, maybe 'cleared' pedigree is a
better word). Whereas, Xiphos is also braver is this regard to challenge legitimate copyright claims. Didn't mean to insult, just to set apart with a brief statement that I see could have been taken not as I had intented. My apologies.
Troy
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Karl Kleinpaste <karl at kleinpaste.org> wrote:
I've really had to think about this one a while before following up, and
I have to say that I just don't know from where some ideas emanate.
"Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe at crosswire.org> writes:
> The Xiphos repo hosts brave modules which give newer features, but
> which might not yet be fully tested on all platforms (I hope this is a
> fair characterization).
Well... No, not really. Not even close, for at least 3 qualifiers.
I don't know how the adjective "brave" comes into use here. It's just a
set of ~70 modules in need of a distribution home. Some of them are
stupefyingly ordinary, some are extraordinarily large, some have styles
of content that aren't found anywhere else. We've got the only maps
modules, for example.
As for "newer features," er, no -- generally, they use no markup that
isn't commonly seen in many others. A larger than usual number are ThML
instead of OSIS, for what we consider good and practical reasons that I
won't belabor now, which certainly puts to bed any idea that we're
exploiting capability not already in use elsewhere.
I don't grasp from where the idea of "not tested on all platforms"
comes. Since I began producing modules of my own, in 2006, I've
regularly tested with Xiphos, BibleCS, BibleTime, and sometimes
BibleDesktop. I figure that at least one of those would show a problem
if there was something actually wrong. I've so seldom seen display
problems occur that, these days, I no longer test modules beyond Xiphos
and BibleCS.
This *persistent* but *false* idea that modules found in Xiphos repo are
untested is particularly disturbing and annoying to me. Download a few
modules in your favorite frontend, experiment, and find me any problem.
Then, and only then, resume complaining about problems of insufficient
testing. We who have authored modules for public use that are
distributed from Xiphos repo are, in fact, just as good at such tasks as
anyone else producing modules present in any other repo.
_____________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.orghttp://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20120730/ae31ee7c/attachment-0001.html>